iJAMMING! is a music and lifestyle web site hosted by
author, journalist and dee jay Tony Fletcher.
Click on the buttons above to access all areas of the site.
For the newest additions, see index at left.
For the iJamming! mission statement click here.
Tony's daily musings are posted on this page.

Tony Fletcher will be reading from his novel Hedonism on Tuesday March 9 at Barnes and Noble, Greenwich Village, 396 Avenue of the Americas at Eighth Street, Manhattan, 7.30pm. Admission free.

From 10-11pm, Tony will play an hour of 'Shoegazing' classics by Ride, My Bloody Valentine, Slowdive, Chapterhouse, Catherine Wheel and others. Come relive the days when guitar players couldn't look you in the eyes for staring at their laces.

FRIDAY MARCH 5

REISSUES REVISITED

The March Hitlistis up. This time round it's a look at some recent Reissues. Featured artists include The Who, Echo and The Bunnymen, Candi Staton, Elton John, the Flaming Lips, Garageland, and Faith Brothers. In other words, your usual eclectic iJamming! bunch. These albums may all be old, but the manner in which they've been packaged is almost all new. And between their different formats - Surround Sound here, bonus DVD there, extra tracks and copious sleevenotes everywhere - they're an interesting indication of where the industry is headed. Read. Enjoy. And comment if need be.

THURSDAY MARCH 4

RHÔNE-GAZING

No lengthy Musing today. A lengthy posting instead: a review of the DOMAINE ROGER PERRIN, CHÂTEAUNEUF DU PAPE 2001 from the Rhône in France.Long-term readers may have been wondering how such a confirmed Rhône freak as myself could write so regularly about the region without celebrating the greatest Appellation of them all. Answer: I was working my way up to it. (Note from the picture at left that the wines come in embossed bottles that emphasise their status as heavy-weights.) I'll tag on the appropriate music recommendation tomorrow when I post the March Hitlist, which is all about Reissues.

Talking of older music, I've been having fun listening through my 'Shoegazing' collection in preparation for tomorrow's Step On happy hour. I'm no great fan of labels; but I do want to recognize a great period in British psychedelia which was unwisely written off in favour of that far more facile format, Britpop. I've written in depth about the magnificent first Ride album, but I've also been digging The Catherine Wheel's back catalogue, the two great Chapterhouse albums, early Verve and Lush, and I'm contemplating adding Curve, the Pixies, Spiritualized, Spacemen 3, the Cocteau Twins and some Jesus and Mary Chain into the mix for the fun of it.

The one group that doesn't seem to have aged so well is Slowdive, and the one band I couldn't even get excited about at the time (and felt even less inspired listening to them last night) is Swervedriver. Unfortunately, and isn't this always the way, I can't find my copy of My Bloody Valentine's Isn't Anything, the album that kick-started the whole era. This is extra galling as I've also misplaced my 12" Andrew Weatherall remix of the Glider EP's 'Soon'; though I have the classic track on a Junior Boys Own double album, the mix was designed for vinyl. (My fellow Brit expat DB still has it and brought it down when he guested at Step On.) And to make matters even worse, I've left my copy of MBV's Loveless Upstate. I'd try and bluff through it if not that a very nice write-up in this week's New York Press emphasizes that very band. Looks like a trip to the record store is in order.

Still talking about older music, I'm off to see The Undertones tonight. Don't normally make a point of seeing reformed groups, especially this many years along, but words on the 'Tones has been generally magnificent. (Even without Feargal.) And I have such strong, fond memories of seeing what I think was their first ever British gig, opening for The Rezillos in 1978 at The Marquee, that I have to go along and see what's shaking - if only because I afforded the reformed Rezillos the same respect two years ago. Expect a report on Monday.

Finally, as we've been talking about The Who a little this week, a plug for the archives pages by Max The Mod, especially his recent, non-Who posting about his work as an extra on The Blow-Up(finally released on DVD). Max is one of the few original Goldhawk Social Club mods to still be around the scene and his enthusiasm for all the good things in life has clearly kept him young; not only have we attended Who shows together, we've also had a good time downing Rhône wine together. This Châteauneuf du Pape is for him.

WEDNESDAY MARCH 3

LOOKING FOR (A) NEW ENGLAND

On the morning that self-confessed New England Patriot John Kerry wakes up with the knowledge he will be facing George W. Bush as Democratic Candidate for The USA Presidency this coming November, it seems approppriate to post the answers to the Pop Culture Quiz I posited almost two weeks ago. Only a handful of people stopped in at The Pub to respond, and I may have been frustrated by that if not for the fact that last week, iJamming! got a record number of hits. So even if you don't have time to get your Atlases and History Books out, you're clearly paying some sort of attention. I've also postedthe following within The Thread at the Pub; meantime, this page offers the necessary links to the answers.

I can't confess that I knew all the answers at the time I posted all the questions. I do know that I threw some in that defied totally 'correct' responses, and some that were deliberately designed to provoke a certain kind of response. Most were simply meant to make us think  that the obvious is not always so simple, that geography and history are just as slippery as politics, and that its difficult to accuse 'foreigners' of ignorance if you can't answer correctly about your own nation. Here are the answers as best as we can claim them.

FOR THE BRITS

1) Q: Which countries comprise Great Britain?
A: That would be England, Scotland and Wales.

3) Q: Which countries comprise the British Isles?
A: England, Scotland, Wales, all of Ireland and, as my mother put it, "all the rocks, knobs, islands, etc." The question was raised as to where the Falkland Islands fit in. (Geographically, of course, they don't. But let's not go there.) My Atlas shows them as belonging to the 'UK', but the British Isle Gen Web Project uses the term 'British Dependency' for both the Falklands and the British Virgin Islands, which means we can excuse them from these answers.

4) Q: Who is the Queen of England?
A: I wrote this question purely for my mother, who as a Scot hates it when Americans call Our Liz the 'Queen of England'. Accordingly, she took the bait, and though her answer is historically accurate ("the last Queen of England was Elizabeth I who died in 1603"), I have to posit that if Liz's correct title is the Queen of the United Kingdom, and if England is part of the United Kingdom, does that not make Elizabeth II the Queen of England in the process? Anyone who claimed Elton John, Boy George or Quentin Crisp read the question in the spirit it was posed and can take a point.

5) Q: Why is the Prince of Wales?
A: Another question that defies a totally correct answer. I like Michael C's response that "only the Welsh would stand for it" but I think my mum's detailed answer wins. I don't even dare check the history books to confirm it. "Edward I felt the Welsh he had invaded refused to accept him (quite so) so he held up his infant prince and at Carnarvon Castle showed him to the people as their Prince. Bet that went down well. Edward 11 as he became was actually born in Carnarvon in 1284 That is why eldest son of monarch is invested as such(in Carnarvon) when he is mature enough and Wales is called The Principality." Wow. Never argue with a former English teacher.

6) Q: Which of the following countries does not have its own Parliamentary Assembly:England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales?
A: It wasn't intended as a 'trick' question, though it should probably have been written as 'Parliament OR Assembly'? The answer is England. Just because the Houses of Parliament are in London, England, doesn't make it England's own Parliament: after all, the laws made in the British Parliament govern the whole of the United Kingdom. But Scotland has its own Parliament. Wales has its own Assembly. And Northern Ireland has one as well; they even held elections just last November. Unfortunately, being Northern Ireland with all its 'troubled History', the Assembly is currently suspended. Which doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. So, England is absolutely the only country without its own Assembly. If you answered England and Northern Ireland, take a point. My thanks to Jeremy Paxman and his book The English for pointing out this unusual and salient statistic.

7) Q: Which of those same countries does not have a professional football league?
A: Wales. Though Welsh teams play in the highly paid English Football League, it is, after all, the English Football League. The Football Association claims to represent English football; it doesn't mention the Welsh. Then again, that organization's FA Cup Final is played not in England these days but in Wales. Someone's having the last laugh.

8) Q: Why are England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales represented individually in international football, cricket and rugby tournaments, but represented collectively in the Olympics?A: I didn't know the answer to this. I'm not sure I do now. I think all the responses are correct in their own way, though the former English teacher sounds certain when she writes, "Because the Olympics are based on countries with a national flag, not parts." But don't the countries within the United Kingdom each have their own national flag? Seems like we're inconclusive on this one.

9) Q: What are the Home Countries? Why don't they play each other any more?
A: I was thinking of the football tournament between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They stopped playing each other when the players complained about too many end-of-season fixtures and the Scots kept running off with the Wembley goalposts. It was pointed out that there's a Rugby Home Countries tournament, though is this not the Six Nations, including France and Italy? And as someone else notes, there is a British Lions rugby tournament to confuse both this answer and the previous one.

10) Q: What are the Home Counties? And why?
A: Brits all know that the Home Counties are the ones that surround Greater London. As for the Why? Kevin B hoped it may have had something to do with "administrative purposes during the infancy of nation building..." and who knows, he may even be right. Everyone else reckons it's southern elitism: that London somehow considers itself "home."

Spot the New England Patriot: Is it James Otis...

...Or John Kerry?

FOR THE YANKS

11) Q: Is the American President really the President of America?
A: A red rag to the British bulldogs, this one. Of course he's not President of America, they say: he didn't win the popular vote. One otherwise sensible Brit tried comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe and President Kim Il Jong but forgot to put in the smiley face to show he wasn't being serious. (At least I hope we wasn't.) Only Pablodulce answered correctly: "No, "America" is not a country but two continents (ask someone from Brazil if they are American). The country I live in is the USA." Well spotted. Kevin B gets a half point for giving the American President his full title.

12) Q: Alaska's part of Canada, isn't it?
A: "Duh" was a popular response. And apparently, the Russians have a claim to it. But no, it's not part of Canada. It's the 49th State of the USA. Still, try telling that to my best mate from England, who thought Alaska was indeed part of Canada, but was offended when an American thought Scotland was part of England. Difficult stuff when you don't live there, isn't it?

13) Q: Canada's part of North America, isn't it?A: Yes it is. North America is a Continent, and Canada is part of that Continent. If they don't like it, as our New Zealand contributor asserts, tough. They should move. Note the smiley: ;->

14) Q: What State is New England in?
A: Less of a trick question than an open one. State of denial, state of regret, and a state of change are all correct. So is the straight-faced assertion that it's not actually a State.

15) Q: What States are in New England?
A: Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine. Or, as Michael C shorthanded, "all the Waspy ones."

16) Q: What's a New England Patriot and why does John Kerry claim to be one?
A: Americans know that the New England Patriots are a "football" team who just won the Super Bowl. Which is why John Kerry claimed to be one in the weeks immediately following the Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake DD Cup Final. The most accurate answer was therefore the Lovegod's: "New England Patriot is an wealthy sportsman playing a bastardised form of rugby and calling it football. John Kerry is a wealthy bastard playing in the political arena who wants to be Head Coach." The English teacher fell hard on this one. Though it's possible that "NE Patriot refers to those who opposed British Govt at War of Independence", her hope that "Kerry is a member of the team Boston Patriots" demonstrates that the British can be just as unobservant of American politics as the Americans are of British. Which was part of the exercise. FYI, John Kerry is the Democratic Candidate for President of the USA. Which, as we now know, is not the same as saying the President of America.

17) Q: In which modern democracy did the phrase 'No taxation without representation' become a battle cry?
A: Chris C responded 'France'. Again, he forgot the smiley. It was, of course, the USA, though Kevin B, by his own admission, splits hairs and notes that "the (American) nation evolved into a Federal Republic," not a "modern democracy." The teacher went one further with this response: "This was the war cry of the American Revolution, I think coined by James Otis." A quick web search reveals that she was correct: the phrase was indeed coined by James Otis. We learn something everyday.

18) Q: In which modern democracy do the residents of that nation's capital city still claim to be suffering 'taxation without representation'?A: Washington, DC. Despite living at the very heart of a modern democracy (okay, a Federal Republic), the good citizens of DC don't have representation in Congress or the Senate. Most people knew this one.

19) Q: Who was the last President of the USA to get 50% of votes cast?
A: I hope everyone understood that I was asking who polled more than 50% of actual votes cast and that I was not referring to the turn-out. In that case, it was the first President George Bush in 1988, who got nearly 53% of the vote. With Ross Perot's Reform Party stepping up as a third Party in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton was able to win the Presidency with considerably less than 50% of the popular vote. Both Gore and Bush get less than 50% of the vote in 2000.

20) Q: Who was the last British Prime Minister to get 50% of votes cast?A: At the last minute, a New Zealand resident stepped in with the right answer. For all the talk of landslides and for all the uncontested Parliamentary Power enjoyed by British Prime Ministers in recent years, no British Prime Minister (or to be specific, their Political Party) has received more than 50% of the vote, certainly since 1945, and the Lovegod thinks it may even be since 1900; I couldn't find records going back that far. The nature of a British three-and more party system in which power is distributed by a first-past-the-post election in 659 'Seats' means that, for example, Thatcher was able to win 61% of the seats in Parliament with just 41% of the vote in 1983, and Blair got almost 64% of the Seats with just 44% of the vote in 1997. Should a party that wins a minority of the popular vote have such an uncontested majority of Parliamentary Power? I think not. "Hence the persistent proportional representation debate," the Lovegod adds and rightly so.

...Or is it this bunch?

Billy Bragg keeps looking for his own New England....

POP IDLERS

21) Who is the King of Pop, and is the title hereditary?
22) Why were Duran Duran given an Outstanding Contribution to Music at the Brits? And a Lifetime Achievement Award by Q Magazine Awards? Did you vote for them?

These questions were relatively facetious, though of course Michael Jackson is the one who claims to be the King of Pop and you're meant to know as much.

Under the circumstances, I have to say my dear old mother took this most seriously: she got 15 answers right and she got them with gusto. Age brings wisdom. That or they took the British monarchy more seriously in the old days. Trouble is, she already has a copy of the prize: one of my books, signed. I can send her another, send her something else, or ask if she wants to give her prize to the Lovegod, who got between 14 and 15 points, and was the only person to get question 20 correct. Or I can posit a tie-breaker or two. Suggestions in the Pub. And back to work....

TUESDAY MARCH 2

WHO'S HINDSIGHT?

I found myself catching up on some recent Who press over the last few days. There's certainly enough of it around. So much so that I wonder what will be left for future biographers. Had I had, for instance, the NME Originals special which reprints almost every NME and Melody Maker feature, review and news story on the band from 1964 onwards, I would not have needed to spend entire weeks at the British Library in Colindale back in 1996 unearthing the pieces one by one for my Keith Moon biography. But then part of the fun of researching such a book was coming across those obscure cuttings that opened up a greater sense of my subject's personality. There would have been no such sense of discovery had I been writing the Moon book knowing that Who fans worldwide had all the same source material at hand.

Future biographers alert: You need no longer take up residence at the British Library....

Still, this edition of the NME (and MM) originals is much more interesting than the one on Madchester or even Punk, for the manner in which it demonstrates the development of music journalism itself. Throughout the 1960s, the features are written in a quick, "deadline's approaching and the pubs are closing" style based on the likely belief that nobody would be reading this stuff anyway in a few weeks' time. The peak, or perhaps the nadir, of this entertaining naïveté is Richard Green's review of Tommy for the NME. Here's the opening few sentences.

"I really was looking forward to this 'pop opera' which has occupied Pete Townshend's mind for so long. Really I was. But what a disappointment, even though I tip it for the NME LP Charts. Admittedly the idea is original but it doesn't come off. Running for over an hour, it goes on and on and isn't totally representative of The Who."

I've also been listening to the recently released Deluxe Edition of Tommy, with its newly unearthed Stereo mixes. The 'pop opera' may have disappointed the amiable Green, but it's hard to think of an album from the sixties that's proved longer lasting or more influential

Although Q attempts to do the thinking for us in its two 50 Years of Rock'n'Roll specials, listing Tommy at number nine in its Twenty Albums That Shaped The Era - of the 1940s through the 1960s. (Each of those Q specials includes a lengthy piece on The Who that liberally quotes from my Moon book. Fair enough, at least they credit it.) In ascending order, The Who's late sixties opus is bested by Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Velvet Underground & Nico, The Beach Boys, Bob Dylan and two albums by The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's at number three and Revolver at number one. I see that there have been previous NME Originals specials on the Beatles. Presumably, they include the old reviews. What words of infinite wisdom were written about those albums at the time?

The NME wrote Tommy off at the time as a "disappointment." Q now ranks it ninth best Album of 1954-1969. Uncut is about to publish a 20-page special on it. It's just been re-rereleased on CD. Oh, and The Who finally found the master tapes...

Hindsight is, of course, the eventual victor over all us pundits. It's just difficult to know when hindsight truly comes into play. Anyone here watch the Oscars? I perused just part of the ceremony, taking time out for Curb Your Enthusiasm, which successfully slips further into sordid slapstick comedy with every episode, somehow maintaining its complete irreverence and intelligence in the process. Anyways, I was happy for Peter Jackson and The Lord of the Rings cast and crew. In many ways the Oscars should have been given for the first movie, which enraptured film-goers worldwide and confirmed the New Line investors' instincts far more blatantly than did the trilogy's predictable (and overlong) finale. But of course, that's not the way the Academy works. They preferred to blank Jackson for the first two movies and give him and, it seems, the whole of New Zealand its due rewards in one fell swoop. They could hardly have done otherwise: The Lord of the Rings Trilogy was Hollywood moviemaking at its epic best  expect for the fact it was made almost entirely without Hollywood's help. View The Return Of The King's eleven Awards as some Hollywood hindsight.

I was similarly pleased for Sofia Coppola. I didn't see many major movies last year  I never do  but Lost In Translation struck me and stuck with me. Comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is apples and coca-cola if ever there was such a situation, but if it's true that Lord of the Rings required greater directing skills,Lost In Translationwas, truly, an Original Screenplay.

Only two more observations. Actresses. How the hell do they keep it together on set while playing Civil War maidens and serial killers, given that they routinely crack open the waterworks the moment they receive an award on television? I mean, aren't they meant to be professionals?

And actors. Why the self-righteousness? Isn't winning the award enough? I'm referring here to Sean Penn. I'm happy for him he got a Best Actor award; though I've yet to see either 21 Grams or Mystic River, the general opinion seems to be he's at the peak of his profession and that he deserves the commendation. Why the need to blow it with these opening words, "If there's one thing actors know  other than that there weren't any WMD...

I don't know what's more egregious. The intimation that all actors think like Sean Penn, the suggestion that actors are omnipotent and should be running the world instead of leaving it to do politicians (unless they're Ronald Reagan, in which case they've been there, done that), or the absolute certainty of his statement, that "There weren't any WMD."

Let's speak in possibilities, instead. Saddam's arsenal may never be found. It may have been destroyed after the 1991 Gulf War, as is the currently prevailing opinion. It's difficult to say there simply "weren't any WMD," given all historical evidence to the contrary. So, it may be worth Penn studying the case of what's ultimately a far more trivial matter - that of the Tommy master tapes.

According to Townshend's close friend Richard Barnes, who wrote the sleeve notes accompanying the 1996 CD re-issue, "After the first cut to vinyl was completed, [Who manager and producer] Kit Lambert declared the album a 'masterpiece' and destroyed the original master tapes by ceremoniously burning them."

But in the sleeve notes for the new, Deluxe Edition double CD, Matt Kent is forced to admit otherwise. "Various stories surround what happened to the final mixed stereo master tape of Tommy,"he notes. "One story is that Kit Lambert destroyed the final master leaving only a 'sweetened' version. However, Pete Townshend says that these stories turned out to be untrue, and whilst researching for this new 5.1 surround sound version the original masters were discovered, still intact."

And where were they found? "Residing in the record company's vault," concludes Kent.As parents of eight year olds everywhere must be thinking, didn't we tell you to look there in the first place?

MONDAY MARCH 1

MAKING TIME...

...Or the lack thereof. I'm busy on some other work and getting a March Hitlist together. If you're a regular visitor and you've been following the Pop-Politics Quiz I posted a week ago, this is your last chance to offer your own responses (as serious as you like) over at the Pub and earn your opportunity to receive a signed book; I'll post what I think are the right answers later today. If you're a newcomer to the site, there's no shortage of features for you to check out, starting below...

COMMENTS ON THIS PAGE OR ANYTHING ELSE IN iJAMMING!?
DISCUSS THEM IN THE PUB

This page last updatedMon, Mar 8, 20045:08 pm)

After providing three years of free content, we ask you to consider a donation to keep iJamming! independent and active. You can give as little or as much as you like: just click one of the buttons below.